



fc-^-^ ^°^:r^%^- .^^^'^'X .''y^^> 



r • 












& - *' «^^'^X ^' *^fe- %/ -^S- -^-0^' 

.„.<^"' .-iJ^i". -^^^..x^* .-aife-. \,./ :'M!h\ %.^^ .-Ji 



L*^ 


















^.^^ 



%.^" - ^ 



















SPEECH 



•' 



J. R. UNDE.RWOOD. 



UPON TFIX 



RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO CENSURE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 



PRESENTING TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A PETITION 



PKATJHS :*0R THK 



DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. 



Lelivereil in' the House of Represent; tite :, on the 27th of January, 1845 



WASHINGTON: 
1842. 



\ 



i \ ^. 



SPEECH. 



1 was born (said Mr. Unberwood) among slaveholders, was educated by one, have lived alt 
my life in their midst, and have been honored by them with many important offices — I am my- 
self a slaveholder. I therefore fall completely within the exception taken by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) to all those situated as I am. I do not admit the validity of 
his challenge. So far as it respects myself, I shall overrule his objection, and sit as one of his 
judges. I perceive no reasons which incapacitate the representatives of the slave-holding States 
from judging, imp'irtially, all questions of contempt or of privilege which may arise; and I appre- 
hend that the gentleman's exception and challenge to nearly one-half of his constitutional triers 
may have some influence (although it ought not, and I hope will not) in creating feehngs of as- 
perity towards the accused. 

I have, from the commencement of this business, protested against its introduction. I have 
some experience, in relation to proceedings of this kind, in this House. I once saw a man brought 
to our bar, to be tried for a contempt in refusing to answer questions before a committee. The trial 
proceeded day after day. The accused (Whitney) was defended by able counsel. In the pro- 
gress of the trial we lost sight of the real culprit, and converted the procedure into a censorious 
investigation of the conduct of the members of this House. After many days of intense excite- 
ment, the House became satisfied that all efforts to punish the accused would prove inefTeclual ; 
and Whitney was dismissed, after we (I do not wish or intend to use harsh terms) had rendered 
ourselves, in public opinion, not very estimable for our proceedings. 

I have seen various attempts made to punish members for assaults and batteries committed in the 
presence of this body, interrupting its sittings, and bringing disgrace upon the country and its in- 
stitutions. I have witnessed, in these ineffectual efforts to inflict punishment, much angry feeling — 
the pouring out of abusive epithets, and the waste of much lime, which should have been other- 
wise employed. 

I witnessed a proceeding, very analogous to the present, against the same gentleman. An at- 
tempt was made to censure him, because he asked the Speaker whether petitions from free negroes 
or slaves could be received under the rules of the House; and intimated, if they could, that he had 
one to offer. After the gentleman had effectually "used up" his assailants — after their missiles had 
rebounded from the mighty shield of the ex-President, and inflicted ghastly wounds on those who 
sent them — when there was no charge left, upon which to base a censure, except that he had 
given "color to an idea," we got clear of the whole aflTair, in the best way we could, by laying it 
on the table, never to be taken up again. It happened that the petition referred to asked for the 
expulsion of the gentleman from Massachusetts ! 

I have known those engaged in duels to be arraigned, first, before a committee, and then before 
the House, upon a preamble and resolutions proposing expulsion and censure as suitable punish- 
ments. The action of this House on the report of the committee upon the case of Mr. Grates, 
commenced on the 21st day of April, and continued, almost without intermission, until the 10th 
day of May, when the whole subject, without coming to any conclusion, was laid on the table. In 
the mean time, scenes of vituperation and disorder, similar to those we have witnessed during the 
last three days, were constantly occurring, and suffusing the cheek of the patriot with the blush of 
shame or indignation. 

With these facts fresh in my recollection, I deemed it a duty to object to the introduction of the 
original resolution of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Gilmer) as soon as it was moved. I 
have been overruled. Those who introduced the subject are answerable for its consequences. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, after I had obtained the floor, rose to a privileged question — 
if not a question of privilege — and made a point of order upon the consideration of the amendment 
offered by my colleague. The point of order turned, in the argument, upen the jurisdiction and au- 
thority of this House to punish the member from Massachusetts for the high crimes or base motives 
imputed to and charged against him. But the question was so presented by the record, that it be- 
came one, in the opinion of many members, of mere expediency, as to the //w/e when my colleague's 
resolutions should be considered, instead of a question involving the jurisdiction and powers of this 
House. The vote, therefore, which overruled the point of order, has not decided the question of 
jurisdiction or power. The whole case is now before us upon its merits, disencumbered from all 



technicality and special pleading; and we must, necessarily, decide upon the extent of our 
powers, the innocence or criminality of the accused, and the nature and extent of the punish- 
ment. T 1 .L T' • .< • 

My colleague's preamble, in substance, affirms that a proposition to dissolve the Lnion is a- 
high breach of privilege, and a contempt ofi'ered to this House." 

Now, sir, I propose to examine the truth of these positions. 

Fortunately for me, my views and opinions have been heretofore expressed, in a speech de- 
livered in this Hall, when Mr. Ghavks and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wist) were pro- 
ceeiled against for the parts thev acted in the fatal duel. I shall now do little more than repeat 
the main grounds of the argument, leaving members to examine the entire reasoning then advanced^ 
by looking into the Journal of Debates, if it be their pleasure to take so much trouble. 

By the Constitution, members of Congress are secured in certain privileges. By a well settled 
rule of interpretation, the enumeration of certain rights in any instrument, excludes those not ex- 
pressed ; and, therefore, nothing can "be claimed as a constitutional privilege which is not ex- 
pressly inserted. These are the words of the Constitution : " They (members of Congress) shall, 
in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their 
sitiendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to or returning from the same; 
and for any speech or debate, in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 
Exemption from arrest and irresponsibility for any speech or debate, in either House, except to 
the House which may be offended thereby, are the two privileges expressed. Why did those whu 
framed the Constitution omit to provide in that instrument for other cases of privilege, known to 
the law of Parliament, as acted on and enforced by the Houses of Lords and of Commons in Eng- 
land 1 Were the sages who framed our Constitution ignorant of the almost unbounded claims of 
the members of Parliament " to privilege 1" No, sir; they understood the subject well, and 
•with a full knowledge of the extravagant pretensions of the members of the British Legislature,, 
the patriots of the ifcvolution secured, in the Constitution, but two privileges to members of Con- 
gress. It has, therefore, always appeared very clear, to ray judgment, that the extension of the 



UreSS. IL lias, lUCltl.'ii, a.,yy>'j^ ^f^f "-- ---j , -- --j J— a > ... , , 

doctrine of "privilege," beyond the letter of the Constitution, is a palpable violation of that instru- 
ment. Hence, wherever it has been proposed to punish a member for an assault or battery, or 
murder, upon the ground of " breach of privilege," I have invariably denounced the proce- 
dure, 'l admit that disorderly conduct, on the part of members disturbing the deliberations of the 
House or its committee.*, or in any manner obstructing the business of legislation, is punishable. 
There is an express warrant in the Constitution for punishing such conduct; for it is provided 
in the fourth section of the first article, that "each House may determine the rule of its proceed- 
ings, punish a member for disorderiy behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a 
member." To proceed against a member for "disorderly behavior," is one thing— to charge him 
with a breach of privilege, or a " high breach of privilege," is another thing, totally different. I 
doubt whether either House can, constitutionally, erect itself into a judicial tribunal— assume cogni- 
yance of cases where the admitted privileges of its members have been violated — pronounce sentence 
againstthe offender, and then put it in execution, through the instrumentality of the Sergeant-at- 
Arms. Suppose I am arrested for debt, after the adjournment of Congress, on my way home; or 
suppose I am held to bail in an action of slander, founded upon words spoken in debate upon this 
floor, and incarcerated for failing to give it ; can the House of Representatives, at its next session, 
assume jurisdiction, and undertake to punish those who may have violated my privileges, or am I 
]('ft to resort to the judicial tribunals for redress 1 But for certain precedents, I should not hesitate 
to decide that the only remedy, in such cases, must be applied by the judiciary. If the House, whose 
inenib.-r is imprisoned in violation of the Constitution, is not in session at the time, then, if judicial 
remedy be discarded, the member must remain in jail until the next meeting of Congress. When 
Congress convenes, can either House issue its writ of habeas corpus with a view to his release ? 
Can either House issue its "capias" against the offender, the breaker of privilege, and bring him 
up to answer, criminally, for his offence, or civilly, to the aggrieved member ] Can the House 
of Representatives, in such cases, punish by censure, fine, imprisonment, or hanging, the man 
viho violates the privileges of a member ] Can either House treat the subject as a civil suit, and 
Tender a judgment for damages to compensate ttie injury 1 If either House has criminal jurisdic- 
tion and may, constitutionally, intiict punishment, has it not civil jurisdiction likewi.«e, and may 
it not settle the entire controversy between the parties 1 I put these questions, and require answers. 
'J hose who altemi>l to answer will, I apprehend, find much difiiculty in placing the power of this 
31ouse upon such foundations as to justify its exercise, in the least degree. It is perfectly obvi- 
ous that, to tolerate such power, is to convert the two Houses of Congress, so far as the privi- 
leges of members arc concerned, into bodies clothed with legislative, judicial, and executive func- 
tions, wnhout limit or restraint. And these "high" powers are to be exercised by men compos- 
ing the two Houses, in behalf of themselves. Thus they, in effect, become judges in their ow.n 
cause. All this is at war with the essence of our institutions; and, but for some precedents to be 
found in our past history, it would \>e difficult for a republican to comprehend how it was possibie 
that either House of Congress should so far fdsrget the principles of justice, and of the Constitu- 
tion as to assume the powere of legislator, judge, juryman, and executioner, for the benefit of its 



member?. There is no excuse for it, but the inconsiderate and blind imitation of the example of the 
British Houses of Parliament. The formation of the Constitution, and the limitations therein pre- 
scribed to the extent of privilege, at once abolished the authority of British' precedents; and it 
should be a source of lasting regret, with every republican, that either Hous« of Congress should, at 
anytime, have gone so far as to invade the province of the judiciary, by attempting to inflict pun- 
ishment upon the citizen for a breach of "privilege." The case of Anderson, charged with violating 
the privileges of members, by offering a bribe, and of the editor of the Aurora, summoned to ap- 
pear before the Senate to answer for an offensive pubhcation, are the unfortunate precedents to 
which I refer, and vfhich I do, mo.^t sincerely, hope may never be followed hereafter. Why, sir, it" 
these cases are to be followed, I might move the House to send for Webb, of the Courier and En- 
quirer, and Bennett, of the Herald, and have the question settled between them, whether W^ebb did 
charge the Kentucky delegation, one and all, with bribery, at the rate of $100,000 per vote, for 
the repeal of the bankrupt act; or whether Bennett, as Webb charge.«, lied outright in making 
the statement. If Bennett propagated the calumnious falsehood, without autliority, he is legally 
guilty of slander, and might be punished. Where would such a doctrine as this lead us, and where 
would it end 1 

Although the Constitution expressly excepts cases of "treason, felony, and breaches of the 
peace," from the operation of "privilege," yet the opinions now advanced, and heretofore prac- 
tised upon, vindicate the propriety of taking hold of a member and proceeding to try him for any 
of these ollenccs, upon the ground that it is matter of " privilege" either to the accused or to his 
fellow members. It cannot be the "privilege" of the accused under the Constitution, for that 
instrument declares, in such cases, he shall have no "privilege." How is it matter of "privi- 
lege" to my fellow members, that I am guilty of "treason, felony, or a breach of the peacel" 
It is impossible that my guilt, which deprives me of " privilsge," and subjects me to arrest, should 
confer upon them privileges not specified or enumerated in the Constitution. For "treason, fel- 
ony, or breach of the peace," I am, at all times, liable to arrest and trial before the judicial tri- 
bunals. Shall this House detain me from the civil magistrate, until my guilt is here pronounced 
by censure or expulsion, and then hand me over, with my case prejudged and prejudiced by the 
decision ? What authority have you to withhold any of your members from the sherifl'or mar- 
shal who has a warrant to arrest for treason or felony ] If you can keep him a day or an hour, 
and put the ofTiccr and his process at defiance, what prevents you from refusing to surrender the 
accused meml^r altogether? If you can detain him until you have tried him, may you not after 
trial, especially should you find him guiltless, detain him months and years ^ And, should you thus 
proceed, what becomes of the constitutional provision which allows immediate arrest in cases ot 
treason and felony 1 It is clear that you violate the Constitution, should you refuse for a moment 
to obey the process of the eivil magistrate. If no warrant is taken out tor the apprehension of the 
accused, does that give you authority to proceed 1 Certainly not. Your jurisdiction is perfect, 
or you have it not to any extent. If you have juri.sdiction.at all, and you commence the trial of 
a member, you should proceed to the termination of it. Now, it is very clear that you have no 
right to resist the process of the civil magistrate, and would be bouml by the Constitution, in the 
midst of such a trial as we are now conducting against the gentleman from Massachusetts, to sur- 
render the accused, or to allow his arrest ? Your liability to be thus interrupted in your proceedings 
and defeated in your jurisdiction, proves that you have no right in the beginning to commence the 
trial. 

Gentlemen may contend that the efTect of my doctrine is, that however base a member may be, 
or however atrocious the crimes he may have committed, he woald be allowed to retain his seat as 
a fit associate of the members of this House. My opinions and doctrines lead to no such result. 
On the contrary, if there be among us a traitor or a felon, any one member of this House may be- 
come his accuser, appeal to the civil magistrate, take out a warrant, have him arrested, and tuns 
him over to the judiciary. If found guilty, the gallows or penitentian' would relieve us from his 
contaminating presence. If acquitted, I doubt very much whether this House ought to readjudi- 
cate the case, with a view to censure, or to expel, or to inlhct any other punishment. The spirit 
of that constitutional provision which declares that no person shall, for the "same offence, be put 
twice in jeopardy of life or limb," and the plea of autrefois acquit, should be respected here as well 
as in the courts of the judiciary. 

There is great impropriety in either House running ahead of the judiciary in affixing a stigma, 
by censure or expulsion, upon anv one of its members accused of crime. We all know how easy 
it is to excite clamor and prejudice, and thereby to prevent a fair and impartial trial. Shall the 
Houses of Congress so far forget their own dignitv, and the principles of justice, as to initiate 
proceedings which may eventuate in the sacrifice of innocent lives ? Suppose I commit homicide, 
my defence before a jury of my peers is, that I did it iu self-defence. It is impossible to say what 
influence my expulsion from this Hall might have upon the minds of my triers. It is certain, that 
so far as it operated, it would be most pernicious, and might cost me my life. I have not looked 
into the proceedings of the Senate in the case of Senator Smith, but I should be very reluctant to 
follow the precedent, if it assumes the right to run ahead of the judicial tribunals. 

[Here Mr. Adams was understood to say, that the case of Smith and the proceedings of the 



6 

Senate established no such principle. He said that Smith had been indicted by a grand jury as- 
an accomplice of Burr, which indictment had been dismissed after Burr's discharge ; that Burr 
•was acquitted upon a special verdict, which did not relieve his character from moral guilt.] 

I am glad to hear the fact slated, said Mr. Unuekwoou, by the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts. It presents the case of Smith in a new light to my mind. It is the case of an acquittal 
upon technical grounds by the judicial tribunal, leaving the moral guilt of the accused as the foun- 
dation of tlie proceedings against him by his fellow members. I am happy to lewn that the Senate 
did not take up the case of Smith until the courts of law were done with it. 

It seems to me that the entire doctrine of the advocates of '• privilege" i.-^ radically erroneous; 
and no part of the doctrine is more objectionable, in my estimation, than that which assumes the 
power to inquire into the moral character and conduct of a member on this floor, and to hold him 
responsible to his fellow members. The decalogue denounces Sabbath breaking and covetous- 
ness. Shall my fellow members try me for these sins, or any other ] Suppose they do try and 
expel me, and my constituents should think proper to send rne back again, will my re-election 
purify my character and make me a fit associate for those who had a few months before expelled 
me? After my re-election, shall I retain a seat, or nmst I submit to a second expulsion, and so 
on without end ? You have nothing to do with my moral character and conduct. For these I 
am responsible to my constituents, and if I am not so vile, in their estimation, as to be rejected by 
them, it is your duty to transact their business with me. A business association will no more 
contaminate your morals or your persons, than a professional association between lawyer and client, 
physician and patient, will communicate crime and disease to him who is employed to defend or 
to heal. Sir, the age is becoming "righteous overmuch." We are squeamishly sensitive on the 
subject of legislative purity, or affect to be so. I am afraid, sir, that the Impartial Judge will say 
to us,"ye strain at gnats and swallow camels." If a member in his motives and his actions does 
not come up exactly to the moral standard which the majority of this House may be disposed to 
erect, will it not be better to leave him to his constituents, rather than undertake to stretch him 
by our chastisements'! Where is your constitutional warrant to make a code of morals, and then 
to establish an inquisitorial court to ascertain who violates your code, and how to punish the of- 
fender ! In my opinion, we are transcending the Constitution, and trampling upon the rights of 
members and the rights of the people, in making the attempt. 

I object, then, to the want of power in this House to try the gentleman from Massachusetts. I 
object fur another reason. If the House has the power to try and to punish the member from 
Massachusetts, what punishment should it inflict ! If he be guilty of treason or subornation of 
perjury, it is worse than "bathos" to reprimand him only. If the charges are true, expulsion is 
too mild a punishment. Fine and imprisonment are inilnitely too mild. If the ex-President be a 
traitor, hanging is the proper punishment. 

[Here Mr. Marshall again denied, in the most emphatic manner, ai he had done the day be- 
fore, that there was any such charge inai'e against Mr. Ahams.] 

I know, said Mr. Undehwoou, that -my colleague's preamble and resolutions do not, in so many 
words, charge the overt act of treason ; but his preamble, in substance, aflirms, that a proposition 
to dissolve the Union necessarily implies the destruction of the Constitution and the overthrow of 
the Republic, "involving necessarily, in its execution and its consequences, the destruction of our 
country and the crime of high treason." The gentleman from Massachusetts has presented such a 
profiosition, not as his own, but for the petitioners. My colleague's first resolution calls this act an 
" indignity " to the House, and an " insult " to the people of the United States ; and his second 
resolution declares, among other things, that the "wound which he (the accused) has permitted 
TO be aimed, through his insirumentality, at the Constitution and existence of his country, might 
well bs held to merit expulsion from the national councils." Now, put this and that together, 
and what does it mean 1 Sir, in the list resolution, the gentleman from Massachusetts is charged 
^vith conduct — or "instrumentality" — which inflicts a "wound" or aims a blow at the Constitu- 
tion and existence of the country, by presenting the proposition of others; and in the preamble we 
are told what is to be implied by a "proposition" to dissolve the organic laws^in other words, to 
dissolve the Union. No inference can be drawn from all this, unless it be that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts is in heart and soul a traitor, and the willing tool, in the hands of traitors, to 
" overtlirow the American Republic." These imputations are cloaked in sonorous words and 
well-turned periods,which do not go directly to their object, but circumambulate with caution, and 
do the thing as effectually in the end as if they had been reduced to a single pointed sentence, de- 
claring that John Q. Adams gave aid and countenance to a traitorous movement. My colleague's 
resolutions do not breathe ajivord — no, not a letter — al)out the declaration or motion of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, which accompanied the presentation of the petition. The motion which he 
made, to have the petition referred to a select committee, with instructions to report an answer, 
showing the reasons why the prayer ouglit not to be granted, is not hinted at, either in my col- 
league's resolutions, or in the oriijinal resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Gilmer.) 
The gentleman from Massachusetts, by that motion, discountenanced and condemned the petition 
at the moment he presented it; and yet, sir, this important fact is suppressed or not noticed in- 
the resolutions proposing to censure him I 



This proceeding is at war with other constitutional principles, v^hich ought ever to be held sa- 
cred. The Constitution declares that no ex post facto law shall be passed, and that cruel and un~ 
u6Mc/ punishments shall not be inflicted. These prohibitions were intended to prevent Congress 
from making, by subsequent legislation, that action a crime, which was not denounced as such by 
the laws in force at the time of its performance -, and to secure notice, beforehand, of the nature 
and extent of punishment which should be inflicted for conduct made criminal by law. All pun- 
ishment is "cruel and unusual" which is imposed by retroactive legislation. Now, sir, what are* 
wc doing ] We are engaged in an attempt to punish the gentleman from Massachusetts for an ■ 
action not made criminal by any former law ; and we are invoked to inflict a punishment which 
neither he, nor any one else, was ever notified should be the consequence of his conduct. 

I am thoroughly convinced that we have tin privllfges, as members, which cannot be better pro- 
tected by the judiciary than by Congress itself. It is high time that the nation should look to the 
abuses which grow out of the attempt to exercise the jurisdiction now attempted, and to examine 
the extravagant and latitudinous pretensions of the advocates of congressional "privilege." The 
question of "privilege" is entirely distinct from the power expressly granted in the Constitution 
to punish and expel members for disorderly behavior. It is the imperative duly of each House 
by Its rules to prescribe punishments for every species of disorder, and to define, vvitJi precision, 
those offences for which a member shall be expelled. I have heretofore called the attention of this 
House to the importance of doing this, but I have in vain urged thq necessity of action. Until the 
House adopts some code defining offences, and prescribing punishments, and the mode of trial, we 
shall be agitated and troubled by abortive efforts to punish, which, instead of preserving our dig- 
nity, are themselves the causes of increased disorder, and tend to bring upon this body a weight of 
public odium which must eventually sink it. The attempt to try Mr. Graves and the seconds in 
the fatal duel, cost the nation more than $40,000. How many days we shall spend depleting the 
public purse at the rate of more than $2,000 per day, in the trial of the ex-President, time must 
determine. The loss of money is nothing compared with the loss of reputation.* 

What has the gentleman from Massachusetts done to insult or contemn this House, for which 
he should be punished ] He did nothing more than I have vpitnessed here a thousand times with- 
out the least excitement. He offered a petition and moved its reference to a select committee, 
with instructions to report against the prayer of the petitioners. That is ail he did. He used no 
indecorous language. He said nothing abu.sive of* any one. He violated no rule of order. For 
what, then, is he to be tried? Why, sir, for nothing ; unless it be the motives and feelings under 
which he acted in presenting the petition. I ask, sir, in sober earnestness, if his triers arfe not 
arrogating to themselves the •powers of Almighty God, in undertaking to judge his motives and 
feelings, and to find guilt in these, when his conduct is not criminall In ordinary prosecutions 
we inter the turpitude of motive and feeling from the criminality of action ; but in this case, the 
action being innocent, being nothing more than the presentation of a petition, we try the motive 
in order to establish the guilt of the accused. And how do we get at his motives'? Why, sir, it 
is done by identifying him with the petitioners. My colleague's resolutions and preamble intimate, 
pretty clearly, that the petitioners invite us to commit treason and perjury, for which they are 
morally guilty ; and their guilt attaches to the gentleman from Massachusetts, because he became 
their instrument in presenting the petition. Huch is the process of reasoning by which to fix a 
guilty or base motive upon the gentleman from Massachusetts; and this is persisted in, notwith- 
standing the gentleman's declaration, constituting a part of the res gesto, that he wished the com- 
mittee instructed to report against it ! My colleague is a lawyer. Does he consider himself iden- 
tified with his clients, and responsible for all the untruths, false statements, and perjuries, which 
may have been perpetrated in the bills and answers, declarations and pleas, which he, for them, 
may have presented to court in the course of his practice 1 God forbid that I should be held re- 
sponsible, either in this world or the next, for the actions or motives of those whom it has been 
my fortune to represent in the judicial tribunals of the country. I know it is a vulgar prejudice 
to identify client and lawyer, and to denounce both ; but I have never known the good sense of 
any people appealed to in vain. Temporary excitements, fanned by demagogues, may lead them 
astray for a while ; but, in the end, they distinguish between the client and the attorney, and per- 
ceive and discountenance the injustice of attaching the guilt of the one to the character of the 
other. Does not a similar distinction exist between the representative and the constituent 1 May 
not the representative offer to the legislative body any and every petition which the constituent 
places in his hands, without thereby identifying himself in motive, feeling, and action, with the 
constituent] May he not present the petition when he is directly opposed to every motive and 
feeling which actuates the petitioner? Su[)pose the petition from Haverhill had been placed in my 
hands" with a request that I should present it ; suppose I had stated to the House that I had such 
a petition ; that it was the first of the kind I ever heard of; that I was not sure but the petitioners 
owere guilty of crime in preparing such a paper ; and that, under such circumstances, not knowing 



* Thp trial nf Mr. Adams, to the exclusion of all oth"r business, commenced on the 25lh of January, and terminate 1 
on the 7lh of February, v^hen the whole proceedings were laiil on the tatile without deciding a single point. The ex 
penses of the House, during the time thus wasted, exceeded g2G,000. 



8 

well what to do, I had determined to present it to the House, and ask its reference to a select com- 
mittee, with instructions to inquire and report what measures ought to be taken ; would any man 
dare rise and charge me, under such circumstances, with treasonable motives, or as aiding and 
abetting those who invite members of Congress to commit perjury ? And yet, sir, the supposed 
case is less favorable than the actual case before us ; for, in the supposed case, I have left the com- 
mittee at liberty to foster and sustain the petition ; whereas, the gentleman from Massachusetts, by 
his instructions, took away all discretion, except as to the number and nature of the reasons to be 
assigned against the prayer of the petition. Sir, it does seem to me that the attempt to punish the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, under the facts of the case, is a direct assault upon the liberty of 
speech, and the liberty of the representative in the discharge of what he regards official duty. In 
this view, the whole proceeding is an outrage upon the first principles of constitutional liberty. 

It is well known to all, who have served with the gentleman from Massachusetts as long as I 
have, that his doctrine on the "right of petition" is ultra in the extreme. I have thought, and 
still think, that he is in an error on the subject. Some years since, I made fruitless efforts to o''- 
tain the floor, with a view to deliver my sentiments and opinions on the subject of the right of 
petiti«n ; and especially the right of the people of the States to petition for the abohtion of slavery 
in the District of Columbia. Not getting an opportunity to make a speech here, I deemed it a 
duty to present my opinions, and the reasons in support of them, to my constituents; and did so, 
through the columns of the National Intelligencer. My letter may be found in that paper, under 
the date of 13th May, 1840. 'I endeavored to demonstrate that the "ri^hf of petition" was not 
unlimited; that it was not coextensive with the liberty of speech. I have heard the gentleman, 
from Massachusetts contend that the only limitation to the right of petition consisted in offensive, 
insulting terms. I have heard him admit that this House was not bound to receive petitions couched 
in oflensive, insulting language. If no such language justified their rejection, then his doctrine 
has always been, since I knew him, that Congress ought to receive and act upon the petitions 
which any portion of the people might think proper to send. Sir, in offeruig the petition front 
Haverh'll.the genlbman from Massachusetts has acted in conformity with principles which he has 
avowed for years. His practice on former occasions-has made a strong impression upon my mind, 
of the sincerity and pertinacity with which he adheres to what I regard an error. Surely members 
have not forgotten the elTorts heretofore made to censure the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
manifesting a willingness to present a petition fcr his own expulsion, coming from free negroes or 
slaves. The other day, he presented a petition for his own degradation as chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Foreign AlTairs. He once presented a petition from a man who asked of Congress the 
privilege of building a house, without showing what obstructions we^-e in his way, or how the ac- 
tion of Congress would relieve his embarrassments. With a knowledge of these facts, I was not 
surprised that the gentleman presented the Haverhill petition. Sir, he could lioi have refused, and 
preserve his consistency. And the cau.se for astonishment is not that he offered the petition, but 
it is that wf, to preserve our privileges, .should undertake to punish him for performing what he 
regards a conscientious duty ! 

I can perceive no foundation on which to chaige the accu.sed with offering an insult or contempt 
to the Hou.^e. The intention or motive is indispensible to con.stitute an insult or contempt ; and if 
you cannot reach the motive, and the action does not necessarily show the motive, then there is 
no foundation on which to presume an insult or contempt, and no one ought to suppose that either 
was offered, without proof. In our schoolboy days, we have all read the fal)le of the lamb and the 
wolf, who was insulted because the lamb crossed or drank in the stream below. I trust, sir, there 
is no't such deep-rooted hostility between the accused and any portion of the members of this House, 
that any pretext will be regarded sufficient to justify his immolation. The gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts has been the most active member in presenting abolition petitions for many years. He 
may have created some personal dislike towards himself, by his course in that respect; but all must 
acknowledge, however offensive such petitions are to many of us, the gentleman has uniformly de- 
clared that" he offered them under a sense of duty, although he would not vote according to the 
wishes of the petitioners. 

For years past, Congress and the nation have been embroiled in the worst feelings m relation 
to the "right i>f petition," especially that cla.ss of petitions praying for the abolition of slavery in 
this District. The course pursued by this House has aggravated instead of allaying the evil. 
The proper remedy is, to take up the .s'ubject deliberately and calmly, and to define the " right of 
petition." Let us examine with a view to ascertain what constitutes the right; how to be exer- 
cised by the people ; and how its exercise should be treated by the deliberative a.ssembly addressed. 
Instead' of doing this, the remedy heretofore applied has been to arrest and prevent discussion. 
"When an offensive petition is presented, we either lay it, or the question of reception, upon the 
'table without debate; and, in regard to the class of pel<itions named, we exclude them from con- 
sideration by the operation of the 21st rule. We thus attempt to keep down unpleasant discus- 
sions. But does not every body sec that the fire is not extinguished by these attempts to smother 
it. Children cannot stay the erliptions of Vesuvius, or smother its internal fires, by tossing their 
toys into the crater; nor can legislators arrest public discu.ssion on any subject, in this free coun- 
try, by rules which exclude debate from their halls. . Sir, we assume more consequence than we 



deserve, if we think that all the sense, all the talent, and all the information of the country are 
concentrated in our State and national legislative assemblies. I admit they furnish the larger por- 
tion oi {he printed speeches fuhlishei for public use. But these are but a drop to the ocean com- 
pared vfith the oral speeches, public and private, from the stump, the pulpit, and the debating 
clubs and societies, which disseminate thought and scatter knowledge from Maine to I^ouisiana, 
from the Atlantic to the Rocky mountains. I leave out of the computation the discussions going 
on in the columns of newspapers, in tracts, in pamphlets, and in books, compared with which the 
debates here are but little more than a mite to the universe. In view of these things, I do not 
hesitate to affirm that there is not the least danger to result from allowing the most unlimited 
range of discussion on this floor upon any and all subjects. If our debatfes convince the public 
judgment, we may induce the people to act with energy in executing any plan to promote their 
interest; but, unless we convince the judgment of the people, they will remain passive and un- 
moved by all we say. Indeed, sir, our angry debutes and personal vituperation have no other 
effect upon the great niasse.<i of the American people than to excite their indignation against our- 
selves. They attribute these vindictive personalities to the true cause— the workings of an unholy 
ambition in the bosoms of those who are not worthy of seats here. The fruits of such a principle 
are — calumny, to disgrace a rival ; puffs and praises, to elevate a worthless idol ; an avidity to make 
political capital out of every thing which promises the least personal advancement; and a reckless- 
ness of consequences which is felt almost e.xclusively in this country by those who live from the 
trade of politics. Sir, the people cannot fail to see these things. Every year is making them 
more palpable. Every breeze now comes loaded with the hissings of public indignation. There 
is much more danger that the people will justify some Cromwell or Napoleon for marching us, at; 
the point of the bayonet, into the Potomac, for the character of our debates, than that we shall be 
able to excite them to civil war, and to acts of outrage upon each other. I therefore sav, in re- 
gard to all those rules denominated " gag-laws," away with them. I have always voted against 
the 21st rule. That rule settles no principle ; it violates the right of the people of this District 
and of Florida to petition Congress on the subject of slavery. These people have an undoubted 
right to petition this body to abolish slavery within their respective Territories; and yet the rule 
deprives them of their right of petition, for the purpose ot excluding petitions from the people of 
the States. The rule does not discriminate between those who have the right and those who have 
not. Neither does the rule silence discussion on the subject of abolition movements. Why, sir, 
-what have we just witnessed? The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) during a two-days' 
speech, talked of little else than abolition. He read paper after paper to exhibit their principles 
and plans, and to prove, in the event of a war with Great Britain, that it was contemplated to 
arm tt\e slaves of the South, to put them under British protection, and to employ them in the but- 
chery of their masters. 

[Here Mr. Wise interrupted M. U. and begged him to do Mr. W. the justice to say that h® 
did all in his power, in every form, to keep off the discussion. After it began and he was attacked 
personally, he was obUged to discuss the subject; and he hoped the gentleman from Kentucky 
woidd not blame him for doing what he was compelled to do against his own will.] 

I have not censured the gentleman, continued Mr. U. ; far from it. I am condemning the 
21st rule ; and I adverted to the gentleman's course to prove how utterly useless the rule was. E 
wish Congress to repeal that rule and define the right of petition. I have attempted to do that in 
the letter to my constituents, already referred to. My physical strength vi'ould fail before I could 
go through all the arguments and illustrations contained in that letter. It is accessible to those 
who may feel any inclination to look into it. I will only tax the patience of the House by stating 
a few leading principles, vi'hich lie at the foundation of the right, and show that it is subject to 
several salutary restrictions. 

First, I contend that no one has a right to petition a legislative body, unless the body petitioned 
has the power to grant the prayer of the petition. It is a sound maxim in law and morals, that 
a vain and nugatory thing ought not to be tolerated. To consume time in debating impossibili- 
ties is ridiculous. It is the first duty of every legislative a.ssembly to know the extent of its 
powers ; and whenever a petition is presented which the body has no power to grant, it is a proper 
exercise of legislative discretion to reject, without receiving it. In such cases, however, good 
policy and courtesy toward the petitioner require that he should be informed why his petition was 
not received. This very Haverhill petition should be rejected under this rule. The right to 
revolutionise the existing Government, when it becomes an engine of oppression — a right asserted 
by our ancestors in the Declaration of Independence — docs not warrant or sanction a petition asking 
us to devise means for the peaceable dissolution of the Union ; because we are not clothed by the 
Constitution with power to dissolve the Union, and because it is made our imperative duty, en- 
joined by oaih, to support the Constitution, which Constitution binds the States by e%'ery liga- 
ment into the closest union. To attempt, therefore, to comply with the wishes of the petitioners 
would be an unconstitutional act. It would be preposterous and degrading to us, as a body, that 
we should gravely dehberate upon a proposal which we have no constitutional power to execute. 



10 

I shall therefore vote against the reception of the petition from Haverhill, and, in doing so, carry 
into opertion one of the limitations upon the right of petition. 

Secondly, I contend that no one has a right to petition for the passage or repeal of laws which 
do not operate upon himself; that no one can be grieved or feel a " grievance," in the constitu- 
tional sense of that term, by the existence cr non-existence of a law which, when in force, 
operates upon others and not upon himself. Under this rule, I deny the right of the people of the 
States to petition for the abolition of slavery in this District. In -doing so, they are, in my opinion, 
pharasaicrtl intermeddlers io the domestic affairs of those whose local institutions should not be 
controlled, and cannot be controlled, by the views and feelings of distant men and women, without 
establishing a despotism*. Under this rule, I have always voted against the reception of abolition 
petitions from the people of the States. But it has always been my wish, when such petitions 
have been rejected, to assign the reason and to state the principles upon which it is done, 
believing that such a course wowld be politic, and tend to allay excitement. If the existence of 
slavery in the District of Columbia operates upon a man living five hundred miles distant, so far 
as he is affected by it, he has a right to petition ; but if it did not affect or touch his life, liberty, 
or property, then he had no more right to petition concerning it than the man in England or 
Russia. I deny that a man has a right to petition against every thing that afllicts his conscience or 
excites his compassion. I deny that the right of petition can be used to propagate this or that 
system of morals or religion. It is an abuse of the right to attempt to use it for any such pur- 
pose ; and, if tolerated as an instrumjBnt to indoctrinate the people or their representatives with 
sectional or sectarian ideas, instead of being a blessing, it will prove one of the greatest curses to 
this country. The abolitionist seizes what he is pleased to denominate the sin of slavery, and 
preaches, through his petition, on that topic. So may every man and woman, boy and girl, in the 
United States, take up some real or imaginary sin, prevailing in this District, (and not to 
a greater extent here than elsewhere,) and send us long and tedious homilies as to the duty and 
obligation we are under, and the means proper, to correct what the petitioner may consider an 
evil. If the " right of petition" is without limit, then, sir, may Turk, .lew, Pagan, Infidel, and 
Christian, each, petition Congress for the establishment of that code, for the government of the 
people of this District which conforms to his peculiar notions, and we shall have little else to do 
than to listen to the interminable lectures of fanatics, visionaries and sectarians, telling us how to 
experiment upon the mice in the exhausted receiver. It is one of the faults of our nature to be 
■very fond of talking about and meddling with the affairs of other people. Now, sir, I am for 
suppressing this garrulous, intermeddling spirit as far as I can. I think sound morals and religion 
require that it should be rebuked. And therefore I say to those who reside in the States, that 
slavery in this District is a local and not a national question — it is no more national than is the 
same institution in the States — and hence they have no right to interfere, and should leave 
the question to the people of the District. 

My physical strength will not enable me to go through all the arguments on the subject. I 
must content myself with a reference to the letter to my constituents. In my judgment, we shall 
never have peace and quiet on this subject, until Congress adopt the true principles which should 
govern, and present them to the people. The people are a reflecting, considerate, honest mass, 
and will do right in the end. They are capable of perceiving the truth, if the subject is fairly and 
honestly argued on both sides. Instead of making the effcvt to give them true principles, we re- 
fuse to discuss. Wc apply a "gag rule," which violates every principle connected with the right 
of petition. Thus it is we keep alive eternal agitations. I know there are men here who desire 
to keep them up. Some are actuated by one motive, and some by another, but all concurring to 
distract the public peace, from one end of the continent to the other. This member desires to 
make political capital out of abolition and abolition petitions : he wishes to secure his election by 
it. That member believes it will ultimately lead to the emancipation of the slave, not only in the 
District, but in all the States ; and he, to secure that end, does all in his power to keep alive this 
fire-brand of strife. And here is a disunionist, who thinks the discord and hatred which result 
from abolition will bring about the severance of the Stales, and the establishment of two or more 
distinct independent nations out of the fragments of the dissevered confederacy. These, and 
perhaps many others, are the causes of the prevailing agitation. Sir, they may continue to work 
until destruction is the consequence, unless we can apply a proper remedy. Can you pacify these 
raging elements by the 21st rule? Did you ever know the promptings of personal interest, the 
delusions of fanaticism, the schemings of ambition, or the dreadful realities of national dismem- 
hermcnt aTid civil war, averted or suppressed by the pn)mulgation of such a mandate as the 21st 
rule?^a mandate which cannot be enforced beyond the limits of this Hall, and which, within it, 
fails in its design, and only aggravates the feelings it was intended to extirpate. Sir, as a Repre- 
sentative from a slaveholding State, I desire nothing so ardently aS' that the Representatives of 
the non-slaveholding States should take up the subjects of the right of petition and of sla.very, 
and debate them to the fullest extent. Let them talk about the institution of slavery in the 
Soulh(3rn States until they have poured out all their waters of bitterness or of benevolence : I do not 
fear the consequences. When they do it, I shall be prepared to sb.ow that, even if the condition 
of the South, in a moral and political aspect, is worse than that of the North, we are not to blame 



li 

for it ; that we are not justly chargeable with the censure of the world for the exiitence of an 
institution entailed upon us by the colonial policy of Great Britain, over which we and our ances- 
tors had no control, and which was entirely independent of, if not adverse to, the wishes of our 
fathers. What! reproach us for an institution forced upon our fathers by the policy of a foreign 
Government, and then reproach us because we will not consent to place the African slave upon an 
equality with ourselves! Let the discussion come. The South is the weaker party. After the 
next apportionment, the non-slaveholding States, at a ratio of U8,000. will have a majority of 52 
members on this floor, instead of their present majority of 44. Relatively, their strength will 
increase after every census, during the existence of the Republic. They have the power now ; 
and, having it, I wish them to declare openly and frankly how they intend to use it. I wish to 
understand them fully on the all-important question of slavery, and I wish my constituents to 
understand them. Away with your 21st rule, then, and let them speak ! 

I know one thing, Mr. Speaker. The State that you and I in part represent has a deeper 
interest in the preservation of this Union, connected with the subject of slavery, than any other 
Slate, except Missouri, Maryland, and Virginia. I have heard Southern gentlemen on this floor, 
time after time, advance sentiments favorable to the dissolution of the Union, as the most elfectufii 
remedy to protect the institution of slavery, and their rights in slave property. Sir, it is a mon- 
strous," a fatal mistake of the South to entertain such ideas. And why ] Because, just so soon 
as the bonds of this Union are dissolved, just as .soon as Mason and Dixon's line wnd the Ohio 
river become the boundary between two independent nations, slavery ceases in all the border States. 
How could we retain our slaves, when they, in one hour, one day, or a week at farthest, could 
pass the boundary, and place themselves upon the territory of a nation which would make it a 
boast, that, as soon as a slave touched its soil, "he was redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled 
from the chains which bound hhn 1" If now our slaves escape into Canada and write insulting 
letters to their former masters, what would they not do, if, instead of having to travel hundreds of 
miles to reach the land where they cannot be arrested, we, by dissolving the Union, bring that 
land so near them that a single step, a mile, or a night's journey, will enable hundreds and thou- 
sands of them to place their feet upon it? Sir, it is too obvious to require argument or illustration, 
that to dissolve the Union is to dissolve the bonds of slavery in all the border Slates. And do you 
think, sir, it would stop there 1 Do you not see that sooner or later this process would extend 
itself farther and farther South, rendering slave labor so precarious and uncertain that it could not 
be depended upon ; and consequently a slave would become almost worthless ; and thus the 
institution itself vyould gradually, but certainly, perish. Fiee a slave as soon as he touches 
the north bank of the Ohio, and what condition do you impose upon the Kentucky slaveholder? 
You instantly m.ike him the mean and crouching slave of his slave. Instead of giving orders as a 
Tnaster, he must beg and beseech as a menial. You make him feel and know that, whenever his 
language excites the resentment of the slave, the best horse is stolen, and in twenty-four or forty- 
eight hours the horse and the rider are across the river. To chastise the slave for negligencies or 
crimes, would induce him instantly to run away, with the certainty that, in a few hours or a few 
days, he would be beyond the reach of pursuit. Dissolve the Union to preserve the institution of 
slavery ! Why, sir, just as soon as that is done, I, for one, shall say to my slaves, "pack up, 
and I will help you across the Ohio. I know that you can get across at any time within tweniy- 
four hours ; that fact cannot be concealed from you, and you will depart whenever the least rebuke 
offends you ; go, therefore, to those who claim to be your friends, for I know if you stay I be^come 
your slave." What will slave labor be worth in Kentucky, under such circumstances? Sir, it 
will not only be worthless, but a ruinous burden. Those capable of labor, the active and intelh- 
gent, will run away and become free, leaving dccrepid age and helpless infancy to remain and eat 
up the substance of the master. I therefore say, sir, that when this state ol things arrives, by the 
dissolution of the Union, I, for one, will help my slaves to cro«s the Ohio. If it be the purpose 
and object ol the abolitionists to bring about that state of things, and they succeed, I will send to 
them all the slaves I own, and persuade my neighbors, to do likewise ; they shall have the 
blessing or the curse of social, civil, and poUtical equality with the negro; but as for me and nnne, 
we will endeavor to preserve the Anglo-Saxon blood uncontaminated by the dingy currents of 
amalgamation. 

The Constitution, as it now stands, on the subject of slavery, is the only safeguard to the insti- 
tution. Northern abolitionists know it ; and hence they have- commenced petitioning Congress 
to change that feature of the Constitution which binds them to restore fugitive slaves. Well, sir, 
I admit their right to petition for a change of the Constitution, for that is a law which operates 
npon them. Such petitions are as dilferent from the Haverhill petition, which has involved us in 
this discussion, as a proposition to reshingle or stop the cracks in an old house is from one to put 
tire to and burn it up. But this Haverhill petition may proceed from those who at heart would 
rejoice to see the Union dissolved, because slavery in the States would fdl with the Union. The 
petitioners may have adopted the Southern remedy for the preservation of the institution ot slavery 
as the means of its destruction. Strange that men should difler so widely on a practical question, 
that the thing which one side considers sanative and conservative, should by the other be regarded 



12 

as poisonous and destructive, and thus, from different motives, both be induced to put it in practice. 
Yet such seems to me to be the tendency of Southern as well as Northern fanaticism. 

I, sir, am anxious to preserve both sections of the country from this fatal, horrible doctrine of 
disunion. I believe there is enough good sense among the mass of the people, both North and 
South, to avert the dreadful calamities which must inevitably follow the dissolution of the Union. 
The matis of the people are now passionately fond of the Union, and I trust they may remain so to the 
end of time. There is no danger, if they are left to their own calm, honest, and dispassionate re- 
flection. The only danger arises from the sinister, selfish, ill-digested schemes of sectional, 
religious, or political agitators. In an unguartled moment, if the niass of the people allow their 
passions to be fanned into a flame, there is danger that a whirlwind of fury and madness may 
desolate the fairest fields of hope and happiness, which have been spread before the nations of earth 
by our system of government. These reckless agitators, on all sides, will find that those who 
raise the storm are, when it comes, deficient in those physical and mental powers necessary to 
control and direct it. The incendiary who applies the torch neither has disposition nor means 
to extinguish the consuming fury of the flame. The glory of saving the building invariably be- 
longs to another. The glory of remodelling society and of reconstructing government, after the 
present systems shall have tumbltd into ruins, will not encircle the brows of the Erostratoses 
who now struggJe in the race for immortality and fame. Think not, agitators, you who shelter 
yourselves behind popular sectional battlements, such as the right of petition, which you refuse or 
fail to define ; or the institution of slavery, which you affect to consider too sacred or too dan- 
gerous to discuss; that, when the hurricane sweeps the earth, you will stand, 

" Strong as the rock of the ocean that stems 
A thousand wild waves on the shore."' 

No ; ye will he scattered as the chaff, and remembered only as faggots consumed by the fires 
of your own kindling. 

The Republic is safe as long as the mass of the people give no heed to such agitators. The 
people of the United States have acted together under bonds of union, and the most endearing 
social ties, notwithstandirig the existence of slavery, ever since and even before the formation of 
the Articles of Confederation, in the year 1778, down to the present time. They have passed 
through two wars with the most powerful nation of the globe. They have found in past time 
every inducement to hang together as one nation and one people. A common language ; a com- 
mon origin ; the ties of consanguinity ; the delights of social intercourse; the advantages of a free 
and unrestricted internal trade, exchanging the productions of every variety of climate and soil, 
and administering to the comfort and happiness of all ; the growing strength of the nation, in po- 
pulation, in military and naval means and defences, by which we, as one people, are rendered more 
secure against foreign aggression ; these, and a thousand other considerations, forcibly address 
themselves to the common sense of the people, and urge them to rally around the standard of their 
Union, if thev would continue prosperous and happy, as they have heretofore been. Can the 
people of the Republic ever forget the glorious associations of the past T Our fathers have cemented 
and consecrated our Union by pouring out their blood into one common reservoir. Our revo- 
lutionary battles were fought by one army, composed of soldiers from all the States ; and who com- 
manded that army 1 A Virginian and a slaveholder. Can the people of the free States forget 
these things, break up the Union, and excite the slaves to a servile warl I make a personal appeal 
to Illinois and Indiana. George Rogers Clark, my grandfather's nephew, conquered Kaskaskia 
and Vincennes, and sent Governor Hamilton, by his fellow soldier, my maternal uncle, John Ro- 
gers, a prisoner to the city of Richmond. The operations of Clark and his handful of men, which 
in history seem more the tale of romance than reality, gave us, in the treaty of 1783, the lakes, in- 
stead of the t)hio, as our boundary. Clark and his soldiers were Virginians. I appeal to Ohio. 
My maternal uncle, whose name I bear, Joseph Rogers, lost his life on the plains of Piqua. I have 
poured out my own blood, fighting the "battles of a common country, upon your soil. Can you 
forget these things ! Can you destroy the Union 1 Can you excite a servile war ? And should 
the time come when the beautiful stream which separates our States is red with the blood which 
its Kentucky tributaries throw into the channel; when the southern breeze wafts to your ears the 
shrieks of women and children, and the midnight sky is purple with the reflected light of our 
burning habitations; can you fold your arms with indifference, oiiliterate the memory of the pa.st, 
when we were comparatively strong and you were weak, and coldly tell us, "we are a divided 
people and wc leave you to your doom"!" [" Never." "Never," was the reply from different 
parts of the Hall. Mr. U. continued.] I know it is impossible to forget the past; and that as- 
sures us of the future in all times of trial and difiiculty. God will not permit ahenalion and sepa- 
ration to take place. We have not yet become mad. We are not yet given up by Him to 
destruction. And I thank those gentlemen of the North most heartily who have declared around 
me that they will "never," "never," "separate from the South." And I do most sincerely 
hope that, if the forty-six Haverhill petitioners have been actuated by serious motives in addressing 
their petition to this House, they are the only persons in Massachusetts, who could entertain 
thoughts so fatal to the peace and welfare of this great nation. Although their petition does not 



13 

amount to treason, it leaJs and invites to it, and involves all the horrible consequences of servile 
and civil war. The personal appeal I have made is far weaker than that which thousands of 
others, living in the slaveholding States, might make to their Northern brethren. But weak and 
insignilicant as it is, it is big enough to show the nature of those ties and associations which must 
be dear to the hearts of the people in every part of our republican empire. 

I cannot dismiss this part of the subject without a word to the abolitionists on this floor. If I 
•understand their creed, nothing will satisfy them short of the emancipation of our slaves, and plac- 
ing them upon a legal footing of perfect equality with their masters, in respect to all social, moral 
civil, and political rights. I appeal to the gentleman before me [Mr. Giddings] and ask if I 
have correctly laid down their doctrine ? 

[Mr. GiDDiKGS, of Ohio, said it gave him great pleasure to respond to the feelings which the 
honorable member had expressed. To all those sentiments he had uttered he responded from his 
inmost heart. He would also say that he was an abolitionist to the full extent in which he under- 
stood that term. That he had conversed with hundreds, and perhaps he might say thousands but 
he had never heard one intimate any intention or wish to interfere, politically, with the institution 
of slavery in Kentucky or any other State. They claim no such right nor do they ask any such 
privilege. Gentlemen might consider him as speaking ex cathedra if they choose. He would 
then say that all imputations and charges of their desire to do so were, so far as he was informed 
unfounded. On the contrary, they ask to be relieved from such interference and taxation for the 
support of slavery. They ask that it should not interfere with them. Let us cease to appropriate 
Ihe money of the free States for the support of slavery. Let Congress cease to involve the free 
States in the disgrace or support of that institution, and they (the abolitionists) will be .'Satisfied as 
to political action. He would stand by Kentucky as long as she had or would stand by Ohio.] 

Mr. UsjiERwooD continued. I am happy to hear the gentleman say that he will stand by 
Kentucky — that he will lend a helping hand in any emergency. There was, however, in the con- 
cluding remarks of the gentleman some things advanced which he did not thoroughly explain. 
What did he mean when he said the abolitionists wished to be relieved from "interference and 
taxation for the support of slavery." The time may come — I hope never to see it, but it may 
come — when my Northern brethren would have to defray a portion of the expenses of suppressing 
servile insurrections, and to be taxed for that purpose. They may not only be taxed, but required 
to march too. Now, sir, I should like to know v.hether it is the object of the abolitionists to be 
delivered from this march and these taxes ? The gentleman shakes his head and seems to say 
"No." .1 hope he may be permitted to explain. I wish to understand the true design and whole 
scope of the abolition movement. 

[Cries of " Lei him explain," Now," "Now." 

The Speaker said it would require universal consent. 

jVlr. Chapman objected. 

Mr. UsDEHwooD thought the House had better let the gentleman explain. (Cries of "now "^ 
"now," " no objection is made.") 

Mr. Chapman withdrew his objection. 

Mr. Giddings took the floor and was about proceeding, when 

Mr. J. Campbell renewed the objection.] 

Mr. UNDERWOOD resumed. I will then go on arjd bring my remarks to a close. I have under- 
stood the gentleman from Ohio as denying any intention, on the part of abolitionists, to refuse the 
payment of taxes or to decline rendering military services when necessary. As I understand him 
he is willing to abide by the Constitution. If so, when hereafter he explains his views more fully, 
it is possible that I may find less to of.end than I have heretofore invariably connected with the 
term "abolition." I have never been governed by names. Things, deeds, actions, are all that I 
regard. If the gentleman from Ohio and his great State will only stand by me and by Kentucky, 
in action, according to the principles of the Constitution, it is all I desire or ask. 

But it was my purpose, in addressing the abolitionists on this floor, to say to ihem, if it be your 
intention to place the negro upon the same platform with the white man, to destroy the social bar- 
riers which now separate the two races, and to make them rivals for popular favor and political dis- 
tinction ; if, in a word, it be your purpose to bring about "amalgamation," you are attempting 
an impossibility. Never, as long as this world stands, can or will the free whites of the South 
consent or submit to any such thing. If thai be your object and you intend to agitate and alarai 
until you accomplish it, then arc we engaged in a death-struggle. It may be our fate to perish. 
You and those whom you n\&y treat as allies, may have the power to exterminate us for ought I 
know ; but history tells us, that, after millions of treasure and myriads of lives were sacrificed by the 
crusades of fanaticism, the banner of Mahomet still waved over the Holy Land. 

Mr. Speaker, the South may submit to a separation of llie two races. Thousands in the 
South are willing to aid in separating and coloaizing, who will perieh in the last ditch fighting 
"gainst emancipation and amalgamation. -My opinions on this head have been often declared and 
iiequeutly published. 

But, sir, I must quit abolition, and return to the prosecution against the genflleman from Mas- 
sachu-.etts. The people of this covmtry, in adoptiag our glorious Constitution, have wisely sane- 



14 

•lioned the principle that members of Congress should not be brought in question elsewhere than 
on this floor for any thing said in debate. So fir as is necessary to preserve order, I admit tha 
this House has jurisdiction over the speeches and words uttered by its members ; and its jurisdic- 
tion to that extent is exclusive of the judiciary. But when I concede we have power to punish 
for indecorous and disorderly remarks, I by no means admit that we have authority to punish a 
member for his moral, religious, or political opinions or actions. That provision of the Consti- 
tution was adopted with a view to secure unbounded liberty of speech and action to the represen- 
tatives of the people in the performance of their legislative duties. They were to speak boldly, 
and not be afraid. Now, sir, does it not frustrate the whole object of the Constitution, in this 
respect, if we take cognizance of a member's moral, religious, or political speeches, or the proposi- 
tions and motions he may deem a duty to make, and which create no disorder 1 Suppose a mem- 
ber declares in his place that he does not believe in the doctrines of the soul's immortality, of a 
state of rewards and punishments beyond the grave, and of a revealed religion ; suppose he de- 
clares openly, what possibly some mny think, and yet conceal, that this world is man's only por- 
tion, and his chief glory to rise to the summit of political power; what would you say, sir, if I 
were to rise to a question of order and "privilege," take down the member's words, ofler a resolu- 
tion of censure, and tell him he " might well be held to merit expulsion from the national coun- 
cils" for avowing sentiments " involving," in their consequences, the destruction of every virtue, 
and the commission of every crime ; that the maintenance of the purity and dignity of the House, 
and its members, required their severest censure ; and, after that, he ought to be turned over to 
his own conscience and the indignation of all men ? I rather think, Mr. Speaker, in such a case, 
if vou did your duty, you would say to me, " You are calling in question the gentleman's religi- 
ous belief, or rather you propose to censure him because he has no religion. The first article of 
the amendments to the Constitution declares, ' That Congress shall make no law respecting the 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' by which the entire subject of 
the citizen's religious opinions, faith, and practice, is excluded expressly from the pale of our con- 
stitutional powers. We cannot legislate on the subject, and therefore we cannot punish, either 
for entertaining this or that religii^us creed, or opposing all religion. It is not a question of 'privi- 
lege,' and certainly you are not privileged to censure the member because he has no religion, any 
more than he has a right to censure you for your religion. You are out of order, by interrupting 
the regular business of the House by moving such a proposition." Such ought to be your re- 
buke to me, Mr. Speaker, in the case supposed ; and when, in the same article, the Constitution 
declares that Congress shall make no law " abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of 
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of 
grievances," I did think that a proposition to censure a member for a speech of a dozen words, 
in the presentation of a petition, was such a direct and palpable violation of the constitutional " free- 
dom of speech," that you, Mr. Speaker, would have united with me in rebuking the gentleman 
from Virginia, (Mr. Gilmer,) by deciding that his resolution of censure was not a question of 
"privilege," and by declaring him out of order. But he.^e we are gravely discussing the right 
and the power to punish the ex-President for presenting a petition, and moving to condemn it ! 
What a glorious thing it is that the Constitution defined treason, declaring that it should consist 
in overt acts; that it should "consist only in levying war against the United States, or in ad- 
hering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Were it not for this salutary definition, 
I do not know but we should convict the gentleman from Massachusetts of constructive treason ; 
and in that event, instead of censure or expulsion, we might leap over another salutary constitu- 
tional provision, under the influence of excited feelings, and pass a bill of attainder, corrupt his 
blood, and confiscate his estates ! 

I call on gentlemen from the South to pause and reflect what they are doing. Already have you 
excited much feeling by the adoption of the 21st rule. What may you not do by assuming the pre- 
rogatives of omniscience, judging the motives of a member and declaring them base in the face of his 
protestations to the contrary, and then punishing, not for any crime, made so by lavj, but for that 
which you choose to make such by ihe ex post facto resolutions of this House — one branch of the 
legislative body. Beware, I pray you, how you sacrifice and make a martyr of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, who has told you over and over again that he is no abolitionist ; that he is no 
disunionist ; but that he is in favor of the right of petition in its greatest latitude. Will 
such a course bring peace and repose 1 Will it heal the dissensions which prevail ? Beware 
how you make a martyr to the right of petition ! The gentleman from Massachusetts will 
go home and say to his constituents, that he has always considered the right of petition co- 
extensive with the liberty of speech ; that he has always, under a sense of duty, presented every 
petition sent him drawn up in decorous language, and for doing so, he has been punished by 
Southern men and Southern votes. What reply would his constituents make 1 Might they 
not say "for such treatment at the hands of these men, it is our will that no other repre- 
sentative of ours shall ever associate with tham," Sir, there is danger that the course which 
the excited feelings of the House may induce it to take, will increase the number of these 
forty-six Haverhill petitioners a thousand fold. I beg gentlemen to pause. From the bottom of 
my soul, I believe nothing good can come out of the passage of the resolutions of my colleague, or 



15 

that for which his are offered as a substitute. I believe the whole proceeding is unconstitutional, 
arbitrary, and will, if .carried out, be productive of bitter fruits. Let us put it aside; let us take 
tip the business of the people, and devote ourselves assiduously to the discharge of our proper 
legislative duties. Let us promote and protect every interest by the passage of just laws ; and let 
this be done calmly, yet firmly, in good temper and without personalities. By such a course we 
shall demonstrate the inestimable value of the Union, and receive the plaudits of a grateful people. 



54 « 



V* ♦L%L% <> 



I'f' V 


















'^0^ 








^°-^^> v"^^/ .^•^'''*' - 




^ov^ 







1^ - « • 



^^-^^^ 









^-o^^-^^ 



- ^'% ^^ 








"-" °- //^<X co\c^.> y.^^^X 






>..<^^ " .o^ ..^'** "^c 



> ■'•^- c°\c:^^ '^'o 












1* -. * • o . 



-^o' 

^ 










iW5^ 







>..s^^ /Jfev \..^^^ /MM^^ %.^^ o* Jtev \./ : 















♦ A V -^^ 



^^""^ /\-^iX ''^'^m:> /^-^X . 



e „ o " » vJ <^ 








^^^ 






*^- 'N » . « • < 











,,-&- . 



vOv!> 







... 0' 'v-'^-^'V V"^^'*/ \1*"^''\**^ 












%/ -^ 









V - * • 



:,* ^*>.. - 



m ^^^\ '. 








